# Satish Kumar Sonker v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 119 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2021-07-29 - **Case number:** Service Single No. 15979 of 2021 - **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satish-kumar-sonker-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47157 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote A. Service Law - Dying-in Harness Rules, 1975 - Rule 2(c) - Appointment - The married daughter comes within the purview of 'family' in terms of Rule 2(c) of the Dying-in-Harness Rules. (Para 4) Writ Petition Disposed of. (E-8) ## Text 8 All. Satish Kumar Sonker Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 119 9. Copy of this judgment be sent to Chairman, U.P. Public Service Tribunal for circulating the same amongst all its Members, so that the learned Members while deciding the claim petition, in the event of disposing of the claim petition with a direction to decide the representation of the petitioner, should not overlook the point of limitation, which they are otherwise obliged to consider, otherwise, this leads to unnecessary complications and revival of stale claims, which is not appropriate. ---------- (2021)08ILR A119 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 29.07.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN , J. Service Single No. 15979 of 2021 Satish Kumar Sonker ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Ajeet Srivastav Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Ramesh Chandra Pandey A. Service Law - Suspension Order - Keeping any employee under suspension without contemplating any departmental enquiry or pending departmental enquiry is not a suspension order but the same is punishment order, which is absolutely illegal and unwarranted. Moreover, its been more than one year nine months since the petitioner is under suspension. Therefore, such an order prolonged suspension order without contemplating or pending departmental enquiry is not only illegal, arbitrary but the same is harassment of the employee. (Para 6) Writ Petition Allowed. (E-8) (Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.) 1. Heard Sri Ajeet Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Ramesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.5 and 6. 2. The order under challenge is the suspension order dated 11.10.2019 passed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, District-Raebareli placing the petitioner under suspension. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid suspension order mainly on two grounds. Firstly, this suspension order has been issued neither in contemplation of the departmental enquiry nor pending departmental enquiry and the law is trite on the point that an employee may be placed under suspension if there is pending departmental enquiry or in contemplation of departmental enquiry and there may not be other eventuality for placing under suspension. The next ground to assail the impugned suspension order is that more than one year and nine months period have already passed since the date of passing the suspension order but neither any charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner nor any enquiry has been contemplated. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly submitted that along with the petitioner one Rahul Tiwari serving on the post of B.L.O. was suspended but he was reinstated by the subsequent order dated 27.11.2019 (Annexure No.2), but no such order has been passed in the case of the petitioner. As per learned counsel for the 120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES petitioner, the petitioner being a Class-IV employee should not be harassed by passing illegal order of suspension. 5. On being confronted asking the reply on the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ramesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the Nagar Palika Parishad could not justify the impugned order of suspension. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned suspension order, if passed without contemplation or pending departmental enquiry, is absolutely illegal and unwarranted. Keeping any employee under suspension without contemplating any departmental enquiry or pending departmental enquiry is not a suspension order but the same is punishment order, which is not permissible. The suspension order is not a tool to harass the employee but it is a method to adjudicate the issue keeping an employee aside from his regular duties till completion of the departmental enquiry paying him subsistence allowance. More than one year and nine months period have passed since the petitioner is under suspension, therefore, this is a prolonged suspension order without contemplating or pending departmental enquiry is not only illegal, arbitrary but the same is harassment of the employee who is serving on Class-IV post. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 8. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned suspension order dated 11.10.2019 passed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, District-Raebareli, which is contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. A writ in the nature of mandamus is also issued commanding the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, District-Raebareli to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith and he shall be paid his full salary and other consequential service benefits treating him as duty if he was not under suspension. 9. The compliance of the aforesaid order shall be made within a period of one month, failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 8% on admissible dues of the petitioner. 10. No order as to cost. ---------- (2021)08ILR A120 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 03.08.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN , J. Service Single No. 16548 of 2021 Shilpi Singh(Smt.) ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Ramesh Kumar Mishra, Ashwani Kumar Mishra Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Alok Saran A. Service Law - Dying-in Harness Rules, 1975 - Rule 2(c) - Appointment - The married daughter comes within the purview of 'family' in terms of Rule 2(c) of the Dying-in-Harness Rules. (Para 4) Writ Petition Disposed of. (E-8)